Okay. Yes, I was feeling sorry for myself yesterday. I was feeling sorry for the Duke LaCrosse victim--I can't imagine what she's going through. All the doubts, the accusations, the male entitlement whores who believe a black woman (or any woman) who, for whatever reason, chooses to work as a stripper, is obligated to submit to sex. I was upset over the athletic culture which thinks that just because these people bring money, attention and prestige to their schools, they should get away with anything.
I don't know if I could do it myself. Push ahead with the case, knowing what it would cost me. The revealing of my entire life, everything I ever did dragged through the mud, my decisions and motivations questioned and under suspicion. And yet....what's the alternative?
Letting these jackasses get away with it??
"Innocent until proven guilty," some cry. Yet, I wonder if in rape and sexual molestation cases, this shouldn't be reversed. A law was recently passed
here in Arizona shifting the burden of proof in self-defense cases. Now, instead of the victim having to prove they were attacked and justify their use of deadly force, the prosecution has to prove the intent was not
self-defense, and the victim was not
in fear of his or her life. In other words, if you are attacked the rightness of defending yourself--even with a gun--is automatically granted.
(Someone was complaining about this law as applied to domestic violence, but I wonder. It seems to me it could be used to protect battered women, by giving them the presumption of being able to defend themselves against their husbands. God knows a battered woman who feels she has to use deadly force to protect herself would certainly be in fear of her life--or her child's life--and in such a case, she would not be prosecuted. A sentence from the article bolsters this argument, if indirectly: "Critics said a person might get away with murder in a household dispute, for example, because the victim wouldn't be around to defend himself or explain why he
was in the home." Emphasis mine. A Freudian slip, perhaps, reflecting the statistics
of women being killed by their husbands or boyfriends
Now. Let's turn this around. (I know this will never happen--it's a thought experiment.) Instead of the Duke LaCross victim having to prove she was raped...how about if the men involved had to prove they didn't
I doubt if such a prospect would deter all rapists, but it might make some of them think. It would certainly show women we believed them, and would get rid of this "she asked for it" nonsense. I'm of the opinion that since men do the raping (and don't say anything to me about women raping--that subject is off limits), they
should be the ones to control themselves. Men
should be the ones held to the higher standard, not women. If men were automatically prosecuted for making unwelcome advances, you'd better believe they would think twice about their speech and actions.
As it is, the Duke LaCrosse victim is being raped twice. Maybe more than twice. Once in reality, once by the media, and once in the courtroom. I certainly wouldn't blame her if she chose to pack it in. But I hope she sticks it out to the bitter end, because only by the example of one woman, and one more woman, and one more, refusing to kowtow to male entitlement whores, will these awful problems be solved.